I think this interview is rather important because RT - in my opinion - tends to have a slight conspiracy point of view on world affairs. That
attitude usually forces them to fall in the category of unreliable sources, but in this particular case it was a point in favor for them.

Why is that important to this interview? Because the interviewer puts forward a couple of questions that many people - including ATS members - often
question them-self's.

I've read the whole interview, and it's rather interesting. I will, to my judgement, place here the most interesting parts in order to members to
discuss or simply read. (Both question and response)

RT: Here you've said there should be no foreign intervention and it should be the Syrian people who do the deciding and it should be done through
diplomacy. However, that's a great idea, but day in day out innocent lives are being lost on both sides. Is it time for something more than talking?
Should Russia be reassessing its position maybe now?

Putin: How come Russia is the only one who’s expected to revise its stance? Don’t you think our counterparts in negotiations ought to revise
theirs as well? Because if we look back at the events in the past few years, we’ll see that quite a few of our counterparts’ initiatives have not
played out the way they were intended to.

Take the examples of the numerous countries ridden by escalating internal conflict. The US and its allies went into Afghanistan, and now they’re all
thinking about how to get out of there. If there’s anything on the table, it’s the issue of assisting them in withdrawing their troops and
hardware from Afghanistan through our transit routes.

Now, are you sure that the situation there will be stable for decades to come? So far, no one is confident about it.

(...)

We realize that this country needs a change, but this doesn’t mean that change should come with bloodshed.

Putin states that the Russian's stand for peace, and are seeking actively a peaceful resolution, while considering both sides - Assad's and FSA's -
interests.

He resorts to examples like Iraq and Libya to explain his point of view, and seeking in the apparent failure in those examples the strength to
the argument that military aid and confrontation don't solve any civilian or internal disputes.

As he mentions, all example states still have some degree of instability and internal confrontations, something that often doesn't transpire in the
Western media.

I have to admit that the following response surprised me quite a bit. Not due to the nature of the response, but because it's an actual President
stating such a clear reality about the Syrian conflict. The surprise comes under the light that the Russians seem to be as active as any western
nation in the issue, instead of the usually-believed tolerant attitude.

RT: OK, well, given the facts regarding Syria that you see on the table now, what is the next step? What do you realistically think is going to
happen next?

Putin: We told our partners we would like to sit down together at the negotiating table in Geneva. And when we did, together we charted a roadmap for
further action that would help bring peace to Syria and channel developments down a more constructive path.

We received almost unanimous support and shared the talks’ results with the Syrian government. But then the rebels actually refused to
recognize those decisions; and many of the negotiating parties have also quietly backed down.

This is a very serious claim to be made. Indirectly, it seems that all parties involved prefer armed conflict over peaceful resolutions.

Maybe a clear fight for power is being drawn?

Putin makes a strong case on how simple it is to start resolving the Syrian issue:

I believe that the first thing to do is to stop shipping arms into the warzone, which is still going on. We should stop trying to impose
unacceptable solutions on either side, because it is a dead-end. That’s what we should do. It is that simple.

Another important topic that Putin puts his finger on is the legitimacy of the U.N., since many people claim that it has lost credibility and started
to look like a fight-cage to world super-powers.

This is Putin's answer:

RT: What are your thoughts about the United Nations and the way the United Nations has reacted particularly in Syria. There's been criticism
that it's failed to deliver a unified front if you like and has become more of a figurehead organization. Do you share that view?

Putin: Quite the contrary, I would say. My take on the issue is the absolute opposite of what you have just said. If the United Nations and the
Security Council had indeed turned into a mere rubberstamping tool for any one of the member states, it would have ceased to exist, just like the
League of Nations did. But the reality is that the Security Council and the UN are meant to be a tool for compromise.

I was quite surprised to see the Russians, represented by Putin, giving such a credibility check to the U.N. . It is true that all involved in the
Security Council have to gain from staying there and by keeping it working, but the fact that both sides of the political compass agree on it's
importance, might clear some fears about U.N. becoming a political - at least only that - tool, instead of a democratic tool.

And, to my surprise, Putin made a very weird - but pertinent - comparison when asked about the issue of Al Qaeda fighters joining the Syrian
conflict:

RT: (...)the catch here is that the FSA is suspected of hiring known Al-Qaeda fighters amongst their ranks. So the twist in this tale is that a
lot of those countries are actually sponsoring terrorism, if you like, in Syria, countries that have suffered from terrible terrorism themselves. Is
that a fair assessment?

Putin: You know, when someone aspires to attain an end they see as optimal, any means will do. As a rule, they will try and do that by hook or by
crook – and hardly ever think of the consequences. That was the case during the war in Afghanistan, when the Soviet Union invaded in 1979. At that
time, our present partners supported a rebel movement there and basically gave rise to Al Qaeda, which later backfired on the United States itself.

Today some want to use militants from Al Qaeda or some other organizations with equally radical views to accomplish their goals in Syria.

This policy is dangerous and very short-sighted. In that case, one should unlock Guantanamo, arm all of its inmates and bring them to Syria to do
the fighting – it's practically the same kind of people. But what we should bear in mind is that one day these people will get back at their former
captors. On the other hand, these same people should bear in mind that they will eventually end up in a new prison, very much like the one off the
Cuban shore.

I would like to emphasize that this policy is very short-sighted and is fraught with dire consequences.

A very harsh but plausible comment made by Putin. After all, we are all suposed to learn from History.

Following this question in the interview, Putin is asked if he considers the Arab Spring a blessing or a curse, to which he replies that it’s too
soon to tell. You can look up his response in the original article.
I will skip that question to give attention to the U.S. and Russian relations and how Putin views the current U.S. President.

RT: (...)If Obama does win a second term, what's going to define the next chapter of Russia and America's relations and is it chapter you can
do business with?

Putin: I believe that over the last four years Presidents Obama and Medvedev have made a lot of progress in strengthening Russia-US relations. We have
signed the new START treaty. Backed by the US, Russia has become a full-fledged member of the World Trade Organization. There have been more
reasons to be optimistic about our bilateral relations: our strengthened cooperation in combating terrorism and organized crime, in the
non-proliferation of weapons of mass-destruction and others. In other words, we have accumulated quite a lot of positive experience.

President Putin then follows the answer by addressing the U.S. missile defense system:

But the issue you mentioned – the US missile defense system – is surely one of the key issues on today’s agenda because it involves
Russia’s vital interests. Scholars and experts understand that a unilateral solution will not enhance global stability. In essence, the intention is
to upset the strategic balance, which is a very dangerous thing to do, as any involved party will always strive to maintain its defensive
capabilities, and the entire thing could simply trigger off an arms race.

Is it possible to find a solution to the problem, if president Obama is re-elected for a second term? In principle, yes, it is. But this isn’t
just about president Obama. For all I know, his desire to work out a solution is quite sincere.

I was personally surprised to see such positive remarks being made by a Russian President relating to his American counterpart.

And in this interview, Putin gives a treat to many ATSers who share his opinion:

I met him recently on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Los Cabos, Mexico where we had a chance to talk. And though we talked mostly about Syria,
I had the chance to feel the mood of my counterpart. My feeling is that he is a sincere man and that he sincerely wants to implement positive
change. But can he do it, will they let him do it?

I mean that there is also the military lobby, and the Department of State, which is quite conservative. By the way it is fairly similar to
Russia’s Foreign Ministry. They are run by a number of professional clans who have been working there for decades. The thing is that in order to
solve the missile defense issue, we both need to accept as an axiom that ‘yes, we are reliable partners and allies for each other’.

Let’s imagine for a second we have the solution – that means that from now on we jointly assess missile threats and control this defense system
together. This is a highly sensitive area of national defense. I am not sure that our partners are ready for this kind of cooperation.

Along with the surprise for his mild support and kind words to President Obama, I was rather surprise of the openess that Putin has when talking about
past russian troubles, going as far as to admit the darker times.

However, Putin then shows that the U.S. Missile Defense System isn’t a simple issue to address or resolve:

RT: Is there anything that Russia can do to try and meet in the middle, to give a better ground?

Putin: We did what we could. We said, let’s do it together. Our partners are so far refusing to go along. What else can we do? We can maintain
dialogue. That’s exactly what we will be doing, but naturally, as our American partners proceed with developing their own missile defense we shall
have to think of how we can defend ourselves and preserve the strategic balance.

By the way, America’s European allies (who also happen to be Russia’s partners) have nothing to do with it. I believe that as a European
national, you should understand it. This is a purely American missile defense system, and a strategic one at that, with its European elements pushed
to the periphery. You see, Europe, just like Russia, is not allowed to take part in either assessing missile threats or controlling the system.

Our original proposal was to develop it as a three-party solution, but our partners have not agreed to it.

The interview then follows to a couple of questions regarding Romney’s stand on the U.S. MDS, which is claimed to “be already aimed at
Russia”.

Again, you can see his response in the original article, which is in the OP’s link.
I will, however, jump that issue to show you his views on the Pussy Riot case. Some of which actually surprised me, especially on the credibility and
past issues. (By the way, it’s actually funny to imagine Putin steering away from the sexual connotation of the word “Pussy”)

RT: Ok and now I’d like to talk about the trial and jailing of Pussy Riot, that punk group band.(...) With hind sight , always a beautiful
thing, but with hindsight do you think the case could have been handled differently?

Putin: You’ve been working in Russia for a while now and maybe know some Russian. Could you please translate the name of the band into Russian?

RT: Pussy Riot the punk band,I don’t know what you would call them in Russian Sir, but may be you could tell me!

Putin: Can you translate the first word into Russian? Or maybe it would sound too obscene? Yes, I think you wouldn’t do it because it sounds too
obscene, even in English.

RT: I actually thought it was referring to a cat, but I’m getting your point here. Do you think the case was handled wrongly in any way, could
some lesson have been learned?

Putin: I know you understand it perfectly well, you don’t need to pretend you don’t get it. It’s just because these people made everyone say
their band’s name too many times. It’s obscene – but forget it.
Here’s what I would like to say. I have always felt that punishment should be proportionate to the offence. I am not in a position now and would
not like, anyway, to comment on the decision of a Russian court, but I would rather talk about the moral side of the story.

First, in case you never heard of it, a couple of years ago one of the band’s members put up three effigies in one of Moscow’s big
supermarkets, with a sign saying that Jews, gays and migrant workers should be driven out of Moscow.

I think the authorities should have looked into their activities back then. After that, they staged an orgy in a public place. Of course,
people are allowed to do whatever they want to do, as long as it’s legal, but this kind of conduct in a public place should not go unnoticed by the
authorities. Then they uploaded the video of that orgy on the internet. You know some fans of group sex say it’s better than one-on-one because,
like in any team, you don’t need to hit the ball all the time.

Although Putin does have that KGB background and sometimes is portrayed as being a badass, he does seem to have a distinct sense of humor (relating to
the “you don’t need to hit the ball all the time” joke).

Again, it’s okay if you do what you like privately, but I wouldn’t be that certain about uploading your acts on the internet. It could be the
subject of legal assessment, too.

Then they turned up at Yelokhovo Cathedral, here in Moscow, causing unholy mayhem, and went to another cathedral and caused mayhem there, too.

The following words by Putin made me think about the whole issue in a different perspective. Maybe that was his main objective, but his words do seem
to bare some big dose of reason:

You know, Russians still have painful memories of the early years of Soviet rule, when thousands of Orthodox, Muslim, as well as clergy of
other religions were persecuted. Soviet authorities brutally repressed the clergy. Many churches were destroyed.

The attacks had a devastating effect on all our traditional religions. And so in general I think the state has to protect the feelings of
believers.

He follows this statement by giving his opinion on the attention given to the case:

I will not comment on whether the verdict is well-grounded and the sentence proportionate to the offence.

These girls must have lawyers who defend their interests in court. They have the right to file an appeal and demand a new hearing. But it’s up to
them, it’s just a legal issue.

(...)

I don’t know whether their lawyers have filed an appeal or not. I don’t follow the case that closely. If they appeal, a higher court is empowered
to take any decision.

To be honest, I try to stay as far away from the case as possible. I know the details but I do not want to get into it.

The interview then continues to address several other issues, that I will not include in this thread:

So, ATSers, be free to comment, debate and refute all this interview as you wish.

Many times these thing's pass unnoticed, but I believe this was a rather interesting interview, where RT mindset did play an important role. I wonder
if other news agencies would dare to question Putin so directly and about such pertinent issues, without the usual journalistic bias that we
witness.

Interesting read, I'll have to watch the video when I have some extra time. I find it refreshing to hear other viewpoints from leaders of other
countries. Too many times all we hear is America's view point.

I would like to see panels made up of some of the major leaders discussing their stance on major issues and have it broadcast around the world during
prime time. Maybe governments need to do this 2 or 3 times a year. I think it would open a lot of eyes and may bring bring warmer relations between
countries. Maybe if negotiations were not always private, the public would bring more pressure on their leaders to compromise.

I would like to see panels made up of some of the major leaders discussing their stance on major issues and have it broadcast around the world during
prime time. Maybe governments need to do this 2 or 3 times a year. I think it would open a lot of eyes and may bring bring warmer relations between
countries. Maybe if negotiations were not always private, the public would bring more pressure on their leaders to compromise.

That's actually a great idea!

I'm guessing that the true nature of world debates and negotiations should be open to the public to assist. In theory, leaders are representing each
and everyone of us, which forces us to assume that nothing that they say in meetings and negotiations is not in our best interest and worthy of
listening to.

This could be so important that world leaders would have to be elected with their true personality in consideration, instead of the speech
front image.

It could also mean that people would - again - fall in love with politics. We all contribute in some way. The more people are passionate and aware of
it, the better!

Putin makes some good points. I've always liked the balance of spin by watching US news and Russian news to compare the two..

I hope we can find ways of handling our future situations in ways that promote growth for ALL of us, and to do this we need muslims, Russians,
Chinese, Indians, the western powers, and many others to find something we ALL want and spend our energy doing that.

Since this is a video interview, it should be available on Youtube too right? Rt usually puts most things they do on youtube and if not this one,
someone else surely would. Trying to find it atm... but have no real clue what to search for other than "putin interview".

Putin is a very likeable leader with a rational, calm and moderate style in the statements he makes. This goes for all of the Russian spokespersons.
Gone are the days of rapping on the table with a shoe and saying "We will bury you."

One would be in a very enviable position if one were a spokesperson for the Russian government. Russia is interested in maintaining the status quo in
their region, while it is crystal clear to everyone that the United States has been operating with an ulterior agenda since 9/11. The US wants to
establish a position of control over the disposition of middle eastern and central asian oil resources.

America's allies know what is going on and they waltz according to the tempo and direction America dictates.

Russia has nothing against the crushing of the Islamic regime of Iran and will not intervene on Iran's behalf. I think they would prefer that Syria
remained unmolested but will not insist militarily that this be so.

The only thing that the Russians are really interested in is the proposed eastern european missile shield, which they regard as being, in reality,
aimed at them, not Iran. I think they are right in this. This is where American policy really starts to get screwy in my opinion.

Putin is regarded by many in Russia as the leader of a regime run by gangsters. Well, America in the late 19th and early 20th century, during the
formative years of the American industrial state could be regarded as being run by gangsters too. In fact since the assassination of Kennedy, one
could make the case that the gangsters have reasserted control of that country.

The future of Russian society depends a great deal on the Russian labor movement, if there is one, and upon politicians who can navigate in the chaos
of post communist Russia. Putin is a guy like that. I think he does have the best interests of the country at heart. It will take time for Russia to
"normalize" and be as happy as a country can ever expect to be.

The key to understanding Russian policy in the current crisis is the missile shield that America would like to put in Eastern Europe. The stated aim
of the Americans is to use the shield to protect Europe from crazy, mad Iran and its crazy mad mullahs.

Russia, where chess occupies the position that hockey does in Canada or football does in the US, says to the Americans, "Ok, crush Iran, to save
Israel, if you must. We won't intervene."

All the while thinking that the crushing of Iran will then remove the stated cause for the setting up of the missile shield in Eastern
Europe.

Coincidentally, this is another case where the hysterical overreactions of Israeli right wing politicians act against the main goals of American
foreign policy and lead America into a comparatively weaker position (no missile shield) all in aid of securing Israel from nuclear attack, as if
there were any chance of that happening anyway, outside of the minds of a few hysterical Israeli housewives and Benjamin Netanyahu.

I dont like any candidate or president anymore when you made it a talking point about obama I quit reading I was more interested in what putin had to
say perhaps you should have kept that out im sure more people like me that dislike the dog and pony show feel the same way eff Mittens and
Obamageddon. If you want to argue read the links you would have posted them all in your first 1000 words instead of commentary for 3 whole sections
dont argue just realize you had something good till you effed it up with a man that is only a name you should have let the other guy do the talking so
that simple peopletons or whatever could hear what someone else in power had to say. I did star you for bringing this to light to me but I cannot say
that I appreciate you highlighting Barack Obama it was a gold post but that ruined it for me you were starred because I read your sourced info and
quit reading in what you thought was important in one way thank you and in another wtf dude.

In fact, the OP highlighted the horse-and-pony show. Putin asked, "Will they [actual controlling interests] let him [Obama] do it?" I don't think
Obama has wholesome intentions and I doubt Putin would disagree with me; but by framing the conversation this way, he is pointing out that what we're
really talking about when we say "Obama" is those controlling interests.

Putin is former KGB, and a highly intelligent individual. A practiced politician and skilled in deception when necessary. Like all politicians, in all
countries on this planet, I trust his motives about as far as I could throw him. (And with my herniated disc, that's not far.)

Russia has by most accounts been supplying the Syrian armed forces with material support, while the U.S. has been supplying the rebels. Both sides of
course deny this, but that isn't worth much in my opinion. As in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, as in other conflicts, it seems the Cold War isn't as dead
as we've been lead to believe, at least diplomatically and covertly.Smacks of proxy wars to me.

I wish both sides would dispense with these aging games, personally. Many lives are being lost.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.